Catholic Bible Study – Lectio: The Case for Jesus
Episode: When Were the Gospels Written?
Date: February 17, 2026
Host: Augustine Institute

Episode Overview

In this session, the host of Lectio: The Case for Jesus confronts the crucial question: When were the Gospels written? This is not just a technical issue for scholars, but a central concern for anyone asking “Who is Jesus?” and wondering about the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts. The discussion challenges common assumptions about the supposed late dating of the Gospels and thus their accuracy, reviewing the major scholarly positions and the historical evidence behind them.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Why Dating the Gospels Matters

• The timing of the Gospels’ composition impacts their reliability as historical testimony about Jesus.
• Skeptics argue that the longer the time between Jesus’s life and the writing of the Gospels, the less trustworthy the accounts become, likening them to a “game of telephone.”
• “As time passes, our memories fade, right? They get distorted, they change. And so skeptics will sometimes say...Are [the Gospels] too late to be reliable? That’s the question we’re looking at in this session.” (00:57)

2. Bart Ehrman’s ‘Time Gap’ Argument

• The host quotes Bart Ehrman’s assessment that Mark was written 35-40 years after Jesus’s death (around 65-70 CE), with Matthew and Luke 15-20 years after that (80-85 CE), and John last (90-95 CE).
• Ehrman’s main point: there’s a “substantial time gap” between Jesus’s life and the Gospels’ composition. (02:00)
• The host notes: this is the “majority opinion” today, but not what Christians believed for most of history.

3. How Scholarly Dates are Established

• There are no explicit dates or copyrights in ancient manuscripts, unlike modern books.
  • “[Ancient documents] did not explicitly identify the date...it’s often much harder to determine the exact date of an ancient book than it is to determine who wrote the book.” (04:06)
• Most dating hangs on one historical event: the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.
  • All three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) feature prophecies by Jesus about the destruction.

4. ‘Prophecy ex Eventu’ (Prophecy After the Fact)

• The scholarly view: since Jesus could not have predicted the Temple’s destruction, its inclusion in the Gospels proves they were written after the event.
  • “Since we know people cannot prophesy the future...the Gospels must have been written after the Temple was destroyed.” (10:55)
• Examples cited:
  • Mark 13:1-2—Jesus predicts not one stone left on another.
  • Luke 19:43-44—Jesus weeps, foresees the city’s siege.

5. Challenging the Mainstream Dating

• The host challenges the assumption that prophecy is impossible.
  • “As Christians, we actually believe prophecy is possible...for the divine Son of God, Jesus...to predict the future is not a problem for us.” (24:18)
• Historical note: The Temple had already been destroyed before (by Babylonians in 587 BC); predictions of destruction would not be unprecedented even in human terms.

6. The Synoptic Problem and the Two-Source Hypothesis

• The “synoptic problem” concerns the literary relationships between Matthew, Mark, and Luke (similarities in content and order).
  • For centuries, the dominant view was Matthew-Mark-Luke order.
  • In the 20th century, most accept the “two-source” hypothesis:
    • Mark written first (~70 AD).
    • Matthew & Luke independently copy Mark, each also using a now-lost “Q” source.
• “Every scholar’s book was talking about a different document. Because the document only existed in their imagination.” (40:25)

7. Internal Evidence for Early Dates

• Some Gospel passages make more sense before the Temple's destruction:
  • Mark 13:14—“pray that it may not happen in winter.” The Temple was destroyed in late summer—why would a post-event text write that?
  • Matthew adds “...or on a Sabbath”: Only relevant pre-70 AD, as the warning would be academic decades later.
  • Luke adds warnings about fleeing the city: again, odd if written 15-20 years after the fact.
• Early church fathers record that Christians did flee Jerusalem prior to its fall, heeding Jesus’s warnings.

8. Why Don’t the Gospels Mention the Fulfillment?

• Nowhere do the Gospels explicitly say Jesus’s prophecy was fulfilled, unlike the Book of Acts, which notes the fulfillment of other prophecies (see Acts 11:28).
• “Why wouldn’t he tell you that Jesus’s most momentous prophecy of all had been fulfilled? ...Because it hadn’t been fulfilled yet.” (55:00)

9. Acts of the Apostles as a Clue to Date

• The Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul alive in Rome, not mentioning Paul’s martyrdom.
• If Acts was written decades after Paul’s death (the majority theory), why not mention it?
  • “Because Paul hadn’t died yet when he finished the book. As a historian, when you’re writing history, you can only take it up to the present.” (58:29)
• If Acts dates to around 62 AD, Luke (its author) and his Gospel are earlier still—perhaps 50s, even 40s.

10. Summary: Living Memory

• Even using the “late” scholarly dates, the Gospels were still written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.
  • Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel wrote about his experiences 40-50 years later, but his testimony is still valued.
• “These are biographies of Jesus written by eyewitnesses or the companion of apostles within the lifetime of the people who experienced them.” (01:07:40)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the academic joke about Gospel dates:
  “If you open the Gospels, you’ll see they have copyright dates at the beginning. Okay, that did not land. That was a joke. Okay, thank you. Can we add a laugh track somewhere?” (04:30)

• On prophecy and history:
  “Even if you don’t believe in prophecy, even if you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus, just from a historical perspective, that argument [for late dating] falls apart.” (21:15)

• On “Q” source skepticism:
  “I always tell them it’s made up, it’s imaginary. It’s basically an attempt to explain all the parallels...There isn’t any hard evidence to work with.” (39:50)

• On humility in scholarship:
  “We need to be humble about what we might actually be able to solve. ...I don’t even remember how I wrote my own books—like, which chapter was first...Here’s the book, it’s finished.” (01:04:20)

• On the central conclusion:
  “You don’t have to have faith, just reason, just history to say that these books give us reliable accounts of what Jesus did and what Jesus said and who he claimed to be.” (01:08:30)

Important Timestamps

• 00:57: Outlining the main question: Are the Gospels too late to be reliable?
• 02:00: Bart Ehrman’s “time gap” argument.
• 10:55: Explanation of why scholars connect Gospel dates to the Temple’s destruction.
• 21:15: Why prophecy as a concept challenges scholarly dating.
• 39:50: Examination of the “Q” source and its problems.
• 55:00: Why the prophecies’ fulfillment is left unnoted in the Gospels.
• 58:29: Acts of the Apostles as a dating clue.
• 01:07:40: The “living memory” argument: Why early or late dates both support historical reliability.
• 01:08:30: Final conclusion on the historical foundation for trust in the Gospels.

Takeaways

• The dates often given for the Gospels (Mark: ~70 AD, Matthew/Luke: ~85, John: ~95) originate from scholarly theories, not explicit historical evidence.
• The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD is central to these dating arguments, but this reasoning rests on the rejection of prophecy—which is unstated and debatable both historically and theologically.
• Internal and external evidence suggest the Gospels could plausibly have been written much earlier, within “living memory” of Jesus and the apostles.
• Ultimately, even the majority view places the Gospels' composition during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and those who knew them, supporting their historical credibility—regardless of one’s faith stance.

Next Session Teaser

The next episode will delve directly into the Gospels themselves, exploring, “Who is Jesus and did he fulfill the prophecies of the Jewish Messiah?”

For Catholics and seekers interested in the reliability and roots of Scripture, this episode offers both a careful breakdown of scholarly arguments and a robust case for trust in the Gospels’ historical nearness to the events they depict.